Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please elaborate. Guess I'm not quite clear on your train of thought on this.
A religion or free press that incites people to riot could be construed as a "tool" that could be used to cause "egregious violence."
Which is why we have laws prohibiting such practices. Just like we have laws prohibiting firearm use under certain conditions. "Tools" of all kinds can be abused, but that does not mean we should ban them.
A religion or free press that incites people to riot could be construed as a "tool" that could be used to cause "egregious violence."
Which is why we have laws prohibiting such practices. Just like we have laws prohibiting firearm use under certain conditions. "Tools" of all kinds can be abused, but that does not mean we should ban them.
So you're comparing free speech or freedom of religion to a deadly weapon? Maybe in some realm, but not in mine. Sorry.
Please elaborate. Guess I'm not quite clear on your train of thought on this.
How many people did Stalin personally kill? How many people did Mao, or Pol Pot? Or Hirohito in China? Or any of the hundreds of dictators in the history of the world? Did Kim Jong-Un just personally execute his uncle?
Did "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" just spontaneously choose to load themselves into aircraft bound for Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively, and dive from the bomb bays of their aircraft once over them? No they were ordered, and in that case on the orders of FDR.
That said how many people died at the orders of Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot? How many died in China? How many died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. How many have died because someone said their were Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq? Regardless of whether you believe there was or was not WMD's of course if there were not, then someone lied, you understand the meaning of the word lie I assume.
Someone has a gun they can kill maybe 20-30 people before someone stops them, and they're either very, very good, or those 20-30 people are disarmed.
Someone with a voice can kill thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, and it's been done many times. It's why philosophers have always believed the pen is mightier than the sword, and the voice is certainly mightier than the gun.
The argument was the 2nd amendment is "It's the only amendment dealing with a tool that can be used to kill people or cause egregious violence".
If that were true, then Stalin wouldn't be infamous, or Pol Pot, the Chinese wouldn't have had 20-35 million killed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been Nuked, and Iraq would not have been invaded.
Sorry, but no. You need a license for the 2nd Amendment because you are purchasing a deadly weapon along with ammunition for said weapon.
It's the only amendment that deals with a tool used to kill people. Get over it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
